53 still not been an adequate punishment of the perpetrators [of the] crime.” It also stated that the Public Prosecutors’ Office continues to make important efforts in the persecution and sanction of the perpetrators and planners of the arrest and death of the victims, which would mean “that we cannot speak of impunity in these cases, in a conclusive and definitive manner.” The State did not refer expressly to the alleged unjustified delay in the investigation. 146. In the present case, the Court established that the State has failed in its duty to respect, prevent, and protect, and therefore it is responsible for the violation of the rights to life, humane treatment, and personal liberty of Marco Antonio Servellón García, Rony Alexis Betancourth Vásquez, Orlando Álvarez Ríos, and Diomedes Obed García Sánchez. In reason of all the above, the State has the duty to investigate the infringement of said rights as a condition for their guarantee, as can be concluded from Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 147. The States Parties to the Convention are obliged to provide effective judicial recourses to the victims of violations to human rights (Article 25), recourses that must be substantiated pursuant to the rules of the due process of law (Article 8(1)), all within the general obligation, of the same States, to guarantee the full and complete exercise of the rights acknowledged by the mentioned treaty to all persons under their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).87 148. The Court has verified that a criminal process was started in the ordinary jurisdiction, in which the cases started with regard to the facts of the present case were accumulated. The Tribunal recalls that, in the light of that established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the proceeding must be developed effectively in regards to a fair trial, in a reasonable period of time, and they must provide an effective recourse to ensure the rights to access to justice, knowledge of the truth of the facts, and the reparation of the next of kin.88 149. In the present case the criminal process was started on March 5, 1996 and in consideration of the processing of the same an opinion was requested from the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice regarding the direction of the procedure. Said Chamber, in its response of August 12, 2002, stated the following: […]1. The present investigative proceedings are still in their preliminary stages, despite the disposition to process included in Article 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedures of 1984, in what refers to the preliminary proceedings not lasting more than one month, except in those cases in which evidence must be collected outside the national territory, but in no case will it exceed 3 months. 2. Within the proceedings ordered by the Examining judge are, identification of files, appointments, cause[s] for the appointments and discharges of some lieutenants and agents, without said requirements having been executed by the authority responsible for providing the information required; likewise it has ordered the forwarding of information on the accused parties’ curriculums without the Court having received timely and precise answers to strengthen the investigation; before the inobservance of that ordered, the judge responsible for the investigation cannot let said negligence go by unnoticed, and therefore should act responsibly within the sphere of his attributions. 3. The levels of investigation practiced up to now to investigate the deaths of MARCO ANTONIO SERVELLON GARCIA, DIOMEDES OBED GARCIA, ORLANDO ALVAREZ RIOS, AND RONY ALEXIS BETANCOURT[H], have not been 87 Cfr. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 175; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 287; and Case of Baldeón García, supra note 3, para. 143. 88 Cfr. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 171; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 291; and Case of Baldeón García, supra note 3, para. 139.